Religious nuts have Killed more than they saved

Post Reply New Topic

You are correct. I do have a problem with religion as a whole. While it certainly can be a positive influence on humanity, I believe it has overall caused more problems than it will ever solve. This does NOT mean I have a problem with religious people or that I think religion is something that needs to be banned. There are exceptions (Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson come to mind), but that is irrespective of their religion and more because of the fact that they are power hungry demagogues.

While I singled out Christianity in the post, it was merely as an example. No religion is innocent of bigotry and violence, even Buddhism (see Sri Lanka). As for Judaism, I would direct you to Jericho, or more recently the current insanity in Israel and the surrounding countries. This is not to say the Palestinians are the good guys either, of course. The tendency for Westerners is to divide opposing groups into "good guys" and "bad guys" when the reality is that both groups are the "bad guys."

But honestly that's a discussion for another topic.

If you read this thread you would see I said I'm an atheist. Millions of people are dead because of atheism. There is nothing special about religion that aids killing people.

You can't always take the actions of a person and then generalize that action upon every other person whom shares the same religion. For instance the issue in Israel. Most of it is not caused specifically by religion or because of it, it's caused by land. Politics. Greed. It's caused by individuals and by people motivated by things that may or may not have anything to do with g-d or religion and just because a christian turns out to be a serial killer does not mean all christians are serial killers. Obviously you know this, but I think the analogy serves to illustrate my point well.

In any case, people are going to have a religion no matter what. People have a desire to understand the things that are around them and some things are currently unexplainable by science. What's -wrong-, and what one should have a problem with, is when people take their version of their religion into a context which causes them to commit an evil deed. Even then, are you still angered at his religion or religion in general, or are you angered at an individual who committed a crime?

It is my belief that religion has not caused a majority of the world's problems, but what most religions actively fight. (Whether or not some of its members get the message.) These things include greed. Malice. Hatred. Pride. Violence. So on and so forth. Now is something that teaches against these things inherently evil? It's a small percentage of people who turn it sour and do terrible things in its name. I would think someone as informed as yourself would be open minded enough to be able to avoid stereotyping based on very little actual information. Your belief is a popular one. But not a very informed one, in my own humble opinion.

As a disclaimer, please note that I intend to you no personal offense. Good discussion so far I'd say.

Thats my point religion is not the route of conflict. People do not need religion to have conflicts. Its just evolution in action.

Precicely. So why have a problem with religion as a whole when just as many atrocities have been caused by those not affiliated with religion or without religious motivations? I'm not directly contradicting the man for the sake of fighting. I genuinely want to know why.

Religion deals with "belief" and that is the danger in it. People get very defensive when they are defending belief - ironically, people hate being wrong. In fact, I think they hate it so much they'd rather go to war then be proven wrong. Its defending the belief that is the issue because "belief != truth" or else we'd call it truth and not 'belief'

I think that view might be much, much too simplistic. War is not a simple thing, and I can think of no war incited in all of the spectrum of world history by religion alone. Also, there's the fact that you can't prove a religious belief wrong, nor can you prove it right. That's the reason for its existance, afterall.

Besides that, there are tons of beliefs that people can have and may be "willing to go to war to defend them" as you so say, which have nothing to do with religion. In that respect I think your point, while good, might be irrelevant to the current discussion.

Hmm, I think I've given a parapraph response to something in my mind that requires a 6000 page essay. This topic is about religion so I kept it to religion.

Other beliefs - Governmental/nationality - Oh did I mention I think those are issues, as well? No, because the thread was about religion. Ever heard the song 'Imagine' by John Lennon - sums everything up. Your mind dictates reality (law of attraction which is a universal law)

You say its too simple but I dont think stating so negates it, it just labels it what it is. Try arguing someone about their belief and tell me they don't get resistent, defensive, etc. Its a human quality in 'learning.' In terms of religion, most are after "truth" but only when the truth aligns with what they believe. Go ahead and find a christian and ask them, while they believe in logic, why 'the arc' falls outside of it.

While nothing is proving religion wrong, it doesnt need to - Religion (the stories, not the actual faith) contradicts itself enough to disprove itself, in my opinion. In terms of preaching peace and respect and all that - thats a universal thing hence why all the religions all over the world end up on the same page with that and why they, when try to explain things they cannot, start with the stories. Also ironic that, while all these religions preach that, very few actually PRACTICE it. This has to do with my favourite area of life - all talk, no walk.

Right now, you can see how government/nationality belief is working in Iraq. Right or wrong, American's cant conceive that people think differently then them so they walk over and force democracy (on not just them, everyone) - its why Chavez calls them 'imperialists' because they are. Both are fighting for what they believe in. But this is do with religion. Religion is belief and the resulting wars are from differences of belief.

Other causes are land and nationality (promoted the same way as religion would but instead of dying for 'god' one dies for 'king and country' (which is something that doesnt exist outside of label)), money/wealth (money is a tool/man made/doesnt exist outside of civilization), expansion (again, most likely for god, king and country, etc.)

The only reason anyone has to go to war is because one is threatened - no religion has any reason to threaten so war should not start - yes, simple, but thats how simple it is. I dont know why you wish it to be complicated

I see your point and it's intriguing and it's good and it makes a lot of sense. I understand it, have considered it. I realize what you're talking about. However, the point of view which I'm standing for is also quite simple, broken completely down. That point of view is this: Religion doesn't start wars. People do.

If religion didn't exist, war still would. That's for sure. People who take religion too far start wars just like people who take pride too far, ambition too far, or other beliefs too far. Any belief taken too far can start a war, so why single out religion? How can you have a problem with the concept of religion when that attitude itself is probably the very thing which is actually causing the wars in the first place? This seems hypocritical to me although I admit that I could be wrong. If I'm misunderstanding something, please set me straight.

Wars are created by people for people. Saying 'people start wars' is like stating the sky is blue - I think it explains nothing more then people start them which I think is true but empty at the same time. Now WHY do they start wars. It isnt human nature to automatically start war because we're human, there are reasons and this thread is discussing one such reason as 'religion' which CAN be broadened to include "Belief" because, you are right, any belief can start a war. I think you are more then right that people start wars but go explain that to a child and he'll come back and ask 'why do they start war?' Now we have to discuss beliefs (religion, nationality, etc)


I dont see how thats hypocritical to suggest people be more open in their beliefs. My background is I'm anti-religion (hardcore beliefs in things like 'Noah' or 'God is the only answer' or 'Heaven exists' or other things that bend logic), I'm anti-nationality (no canada, no america, no japanese, only human) and anti-government (I'm pro-choice beyond a doubt). If thats hypocrisy then sign me up. Pro-life, pro-freedom, go humans

The sad truth is that people need government. People need religion. And people are going to have nationalities. : \ John Lennon had a great idea in 'Imagine', and I'm not saying that I disagree with that vision. It's a good one. It's one that I wish were possible. Unfortunately, however, government is necessary and the only way you're going to influence the world for the better is to promote a better government, not try to tear it all down. The only way to influence the world for the better is to promote a better tolerance within religions and world peoples and nationalities. Eventually, when we no longer need these things, they will phase out on their own. Maybe. Some day. But right now, being anti-organization -is- being anti-human. You're a very intelligent person. I think it's a shame that you don't put your intelligence to work in areas that can improve the world. As the old saying goes: If you don't like politics, you should run in the next election.

EDIT: I had a bunch of s**t here but I removed it because I hate talking about myself, but to call me anti-human would mean that most people are BEYOND anti-human (most likely still monkey's). I dont think you are judging me anywhere near accurately and most of by beliefs are FOR people, so I'm REALLY not sure where you get these assumptions but stop - I dont think you should ever assume a thing in your life. If I did that in my company I could cost them millions.

Anti-Organisation? I understand what these things do and why they work and why they dont. Its what religion, faith, thinking positively, and 'having your fortune come true' all have in common. People don't need any of this (organisation), they NEED food, clothing and shelter (and even that pends on weather). Again, don't assume because you are concluding beyond wrong

(oh and the ability to stand on their own as individuals. I feel like the "Borg" when I say that)

Talk about "obstinancy in belief," Ahayes! I believe C. S. Lewis gave an address to the Socratic Club with that title. Could Erlyrisa give a little more information about the specific religious lunacy she is deriding? I have an idea, but I may be wrong. Christians can be offputting. I am a Christian. Come to think of it, some people probably find me off-putting. I must be a case in point. Ah well. What church are you planning on joining, Ahayes?